Effects of long-term HbA1c variability on serious infection risks in patients with type 2 diabetes and the influence of age, sex and ethnicity: A cohort study of primary care data.

AIMS: Long-term HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) variability is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications in Type 2 diabetes (T2D). We explored prospective associations between HbA1c variability and serious infections, and how these vary by HbA1c level, age, sex and ethnicity. METHODS: 411,963 T2D patients in England, aged 18-90, alive on 01/01/2015 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with ≥ 4 HbA1c measurements during 2011-14. Poisson regression estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for infections requiring hospitalisation during 2015-19 by HbA1c variability score (HVS) and average level, adjusting for confounders, and stratified by age, sex, ethnicity and average level. Attributable risk fractions (AF) were calculated using reference categories for variability (HVS < 20) and average level (42-48 mmol/mol). RESULTS: An increased infection risk (IRR > 1.2) was seen with even modest variability (HVS ≥ 20, 73 % of T2D patients), but only at higher average levels (≥64 mmol/mol, 27 % patients). Estimated AFs were markedly greater for variability than average level (17.1 % vs. 4.1 %). Associations with variability were greater among older patients, and those with lower HbA1c levels, but not observed among Black ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c variability between T2D patients' primary care visits appears to be associated with more serious infections than average level overall. Well-designed trials could test whether these associations are causal.

A matched cohort study evaluating the risks of infections in people with type 1 diabetes and their associations with glycated haemoglobin.

AIMS: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have raised infection rates compared to those without, but how these risks vary by age, sex and ethnicity, or by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), remain uncertain. METHODS: 33,829 patients with T1D in Clinical Practice Research Datalink on 01/01/2015 were age-sex-ethnicity matched to two non-diabetes patients. Infections were collated from primary care and linked hospitalisation records during 2015-2019, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated versus non-diabetes. For 26,096 people with T1D, with ≥3 HbA1c measurements in 2012-2014, mean and coefficient of variation were estimated, and compared across percentiles. RESULTS: People with T1D had increased risk for infections presenting in primary care (IRR = 1.81, 95%CI 1.77-1.85) and hospitalisations (IRR = 3.37, 3.21-3.53) compared to non-diabetes, slightly attenuated after further adjustment. Younger ages and non-White ethnicities had greater relative risks, potentially explained by higher HbA1c mean and variability amongst people with T1D within these sub-groups. Both mean HbA1c and greater variability were strongly associated with infection risks, but the greatest associations were at the highest mean levels (hospitalisations IRR = 4.09, 3.64-4.59) for >97 versus ≤53 mmol/mol. CONCLUSIONS: Infections are a significant health burden in T1D. Improved glycaemic control may reduce infection risks, while prompter infection treatments may reduce hospital admissions.

Bariatric surgery provision in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study of a national registry.

BACKGROUND: When surgery resumed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines recommended the prioritization of patients with greater obesity-related co-morbidities and/or higher body mass index. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to record the effect of the pandemic on total number, patient demographics, and perioperative outcomes of elective bariatric surgery patients in the United Kingdom. SETTING AND METHODS: The United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgical Registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective bariatric surgery during the pandemic (1 yr from April 1, 2020). Characteristics of this group were compared with those of a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcomes were case volume, case mix, and providers. National Health Service cases were analyzed for baseline health status and perioperative outcomes. Fisher exact, χ2, and Student t tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: The total number of cases decreased to one third of pre-pandemic volume (8615 to 2930). The decrease in operating volume varied, with 36 hospitals (45%) experiencing a 75%-100% reduction. Cases performed in the National Health Service fell from 74% to 53% (P < .0001). There was no change in baseline body mass index (45.2 ± 8.3 kg/m2 from 45.5 ± 8.3 kg/m2; P = .23) or prevalence of type 2 diabetes (26% from 26%; P = .99). Length of stay (median 2 d) and surgical complication rate (1.4% from 2.0%; relative risk = .71; 95% CI .45-1.12; P = .13) were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a dramatic reduction in elective bariatric surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with more severe co-morbidities were not prioritized for surgery. These findings should inform preparation for future crises.

Evaluating Ethnic Variations in the Risk of Infections in People With Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: A Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: People living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at higher infection risk, but it is unknown how this risk varies by ethnicity or whether the risk is similarly observed in people with nondiabetic hyperglycemia ("prediabetes"). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included 527,151 patients in England with T2D and 273,216 with prediabetes, aged 18-90, and alive on 1 January 2015 on the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Each was matched to two patients without diabetes or prediabetes on age, sex, and ethnic group. Infections during 2015-2019 were collated from primary care and linked hospitalization records. Infection incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for those with prediabetes or T2D were estimated, unadjusted and adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: People with T2D had increased risk for infections presenting in primary care (IRR 1.51, 95% CI 1.51-1.52) and hospitalizations (IRR 1.91, 1.90-1.93). This was broadly consistent overall within each ethnic group, although younger White T2D patients (age <50) experienced a greater relative risk. Adjustment for socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, and comorbidity attenuated associations, but IRRs remained similar by ethnicity. For prediabetes, a significant but smaller risk was observed (primary care IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.34-1.36; hospitalization IRR 1.33, 1.31-1.35). These were similar within each ethnicity for primary care infections, but less consistent for infection-related hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: The elevated infection risk for people with T2D appears similar for different ethnic groups and is also seen in people with prediabetes. Infections are a substantial cause of ill-health and health service use for people with prediabetes and T2D. This has public health implications with rising prediabetes and diabetes prevalence.

Prevalence of co-morbidity and history of recent infection in patients with neuromuscular disease: A cross-sectional analysis of United Kingdom primary care data.

BACKGROUND: People with neuromuscular disease (NMD) experience a broader range of chronic diseases and health symptoms compared to the general population. However, no comprehensive analysis has directly quantified this to our knowledge. METHODS: We used a large UK primary care database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) to compare the prevalence of chronic diseases and other health conditions, including recent infections between 23,876 patients with NMD ever recorded by 2019 compared to 95,295 age-sex-practice matched patients without NMD. Modified Poisson regression estimated Prevalence Ratios (PR) to summarise the presence of the disease/condition ever (or for infections in 2018) in NMD patients versus non-NMD patients. RESULTS: Patients with NMD had significantly higher rates for 16 of the 18 conditions routinely recorded in the primary care Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Approximately 1-in-10 adults with NMD had ≥4 conditions recorded (PR = 1.39, 95%CI 1.33-1.45). Disparities were more pronounced at younger ages (18-49). For other (non-QOF) health conditions, significantly higher recorded levels were observed for rarer events (pulmonary embolism PR = 1.96 95%CI 1.76-2.18, hip fractures PR = 1.65 95%CI 1.47-1.85) as well as for more common primary care conditions (constipation PR = 1.52 95%CI 1.46-1.57, incontinence PR = 1.52 95%CI 1.44-1.60). The greatest co-morbidity burden was in patients with a myotonic disorder. Approximately 1-in-6 (17.1%) NMD patients had an infection recorded in the preceding year, with the risk of being hospitalised with an infection nearly double (PR = 1.92, 95%CI 1.79-2.07) compared to non-NMD patients. CONCLUSION: The burden of chronic co-morbidity among patients with NMD is extremely high compared to the general population, and they are also more likely to present in primary and secondary care for acute events such as infections.

Prevalence and incidence of neuromuscular conditions in the UK between 2000 and 2019: A retrospective study using primary care data.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, large-scale electronic primary care datasets can provide up-to-date, accurate epidemiological information on rarer diseases, where specialist diagnoses from hospital discharges and clinic letters are generally well recorded and electronically searchable. Current estimates of the number of people living with neuromuscular disease (NMD) have largely been based on secondary care data sources and lacked direct denominators. OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends in the recording of neuromuscular disease in UK primary care between 2000-2019. METHODS: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database was searched electronically to estimate incidence and prevalence rates (per 100,000) for a range of NMDs in each year. To compare trends over time, rates were age standardised to the most recent CPRD population (2019). RESULTS: Approximately 13 million patients were actively registered in each year. By 2019, 28,230 active patients had ever received a NMD diagnosis (223.6), which was higher among males (239.0) than females (208.3). The most common classifications were Guillain-Barre syndrome (40.1), myasthenia gravis (33.7), muscular dystrophy (29.5), Charcot-Marie-Tooth (29.5) and inflammatory myopathies (25.0). Since 2000, overall prevalence grew by 63%, with the largest increases seen at older ages (≥65-years). However, overall incidence remained constant, though myasthenia gravis incidence has risen steadily since 2008, while new cases of muscular dystrophy fell over the same period. CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime recording of many NMDs on primary care records exceed current estimates of people living with these conditions; these are important data for health service and care planning. Temporal trends suggest this number is steadily increasing, and while this may partially be due to better recording, it cannot be simply explained by new cases, as incidence remained constant. The increase in prevalence among older ages suggests increases in life expectancy among those living with NMDs may have occurred.

Risk factors for excess all-cause mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: A retrospective cohort study of primary care data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic's first wave in England during spring 2020 resulted in an approximate 50% increase in all-cause mortality. Previously, risk factors such as age and ethnicity, were identified by studying COVID-related deaths only, but these were under-recorded during this period. OBJECTIVE: To use a large electronic primary care database to estimate the impact of risk factors (RFs) on excess mortality in England during the first wave, compared with the impact on total mortality during 2015-19. METHODS: Medical history, ethnicity, area-based deprivation and vital status data were extracted for an average of 4.8 million patients aged 30-104 years, for each year between 18-March and 19-May over a 6-year period (2015-2020). We used Poisson regression to model total mortality adjusting for age and sex, with interactions between each RF and period (pandemic vs. 2015-19). Total mortality during the pandemic was partitioned into "usual" and "excess" components, assuming 2015-19 rates represented "usual" mortality. The association of each RF with the 2020 "excess" component was derived as the excess mortality ratio (EMR), and compared with the usual mortality ratio (UMR). RESULTS: RFs where excess mortality was greatest and notably higher than usual were age >80, non-white ethnicity (e.g., black vs. white EMR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.97-3.18; compared to UMR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.85-1.00), BMI>40, dementia, learning disability, severe mental illness, place of residence (London, care-home, most deprived). By contrast, EMRs were comparable to UMRs for sex. Although some co-morbidities such as cancer produced EMRs significantly below their UMRs, the EMRs were still >1. In contrast current smoking has an EMR below 1 (EMR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.65-0.98) compared to its UMR = 1.64. CONCLUSIONS: Studying risk factors for excess mortality during the pandemic highlighted differences from studying cause-specific mortality. Our approach illustrates a novel methodology for evaluating a pandemic's impact by individual risk factor without requiring cause-specific mortality data.

The rising tide of dementia deaths: triangulation of data from three routine data sources using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is currently the leading certified underlying cause of death in England. We assess how dementia recording on Office for National Statistics death certificates (ONS) corresponded to recording in general practice records (GP) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). METHODS: Retrospective study of deaths (2001-15) in 153 English General Practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, with linked ONS and HES records. RESULTS: Of 207,068 total deaths from any cause, 19,627 mentioned dementia on the death certificate with 10,253 as underlying cause; steady increases occurred from 2001 to 2015 (any mention 5.3 to 15.4 %, underlying cause 2.7 to 10 %). Including all data sources, recording of any dementia increased from 13.2 to 28.6 %. In 2015, only 53.8 % of people dying with dementia had dementia recorded on their death certificates. Among deaths mentioning dementia on the death certificate, the recording of a prior diagnosis of dementia in GP and HES rose markedly over the same period. In 2001, only 76.3 % had a prior diagnosis in GP and/or HES records; by 2015 this had risen to 95.7 %. However, over the same period the percentage of all deaths with dementia recorded in GP or HES but not mentioned on the death certificate rose from 7.9 to 13.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia recording in all data sources increased between 2001 and 2015. By 2015 the vast majority of deaths mentioning dementia had supporting evidence in primary and/or secondary care. However, death certificates were still providing an inadequate picture of the number of people dying with dementia.

Development of a structured clinical pharmacology review for specialist support for management of complex polypharmacy in primary care.

AIMS: Polypharmacy is widespread and associated with medication-related harms, including adverse drug reactions, medication errors and poor treatment adherence. General practitioners and pharmacists cite limited time and training to perform effective medication reviews for patients with complex polypharmacy, yet no specialist referral mechanism exists. To develop a structured framework for specialist review of primary care patients with complex polypharmacy. METHODS: We developed the clinical pharmacology structured review (CPSR) and stopping by indication tool (SBIT). We tested these in an age-sex stratified sample of 100 people with polypharmacy aged 65-84 years from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an anonymised primary care database. Simulated medication reviews based on electronic records using the CPSR and SBIT were performed. We recommended medication changes or review to optimise treatment benefits, reduce risk of harm or reduce treatment burden. RESULTS: Recommendations were made for all patients, for almost half (4.8 ± 2.4) of existing medicines (9.8 ± 3.1), most commonly stopping a drug (1.7 ± 1.3/patient) or reviewing with the patient (1.4 ± 1.2/patient). At least 1 new medicine (0.7 ± 0.9) was recommended for 51% patients. Recommendations predominantly aimed to reduce harm (44%). There was no relationship between number of recommendations made and time since last primary care medication review. We identified a core set of clinical information and investigations (polypharmacy workup) that could inform a standard screen prior to specialist review. CONCLUSION: The CPSR, SBIT and polypharmacy workup could form the basis of a specialist review for patients with complex polypharmacy. Further research is needed to test this approach in patients in general practice.

Variability in Glycated Hemoglobin and Risk of Poor Outcomes Among People With Type 2 Diabetes in a Large Primary Care Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes guidelines focus on target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Long-term variability in HbA1c may be predictive of hospitalization or mortality, but its importance at different average levels or trajectories is unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using English primary care data, 58,832 patients with type 2 diabetes had HbA1c average (mean of annual means), variability (coefficient of variation), and trajectory (annual regression slope) estimated during 2006-2009. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality and emergency hospitalization during 2010-2015, with adjustment for age, sex, smoking, BMI, duration of diabetes, and deprivation, were estimated using Cox regression. The simultaneous impact of HbA1c average, variability, and trajectory was estimated using percentiles. RESULTS: In mutually adjusted models, HbA1c variability showed a consistent dose-response relationship with all-cause mortality, while average level was only important among individuals in the highest or lowest 10% of the distribution, and trajectory had no independent effect. Individuals with the most unstable HbA1c (top 10%) were almost twice as likely to die (HR 1.93 [95% CI 1.72-2.16]) than were those with the most stable (bottom 10%)-an association attenuated but not explained by hypoglycemia. For emergency hospitalizations, similar trends were seen except for coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemic stroke (IS), where increasing average rather than variability was predictive. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c variability was strongly associated with overall mortality and emergency hospitalization and not explained by average HbA1c or hypoglycemic episodes. Only for CAD and IS hospitalizations was no association found, with average HbA1c strongly predictive. Targets should focus on both stability and absolute level of HbA1c.

Longitudinal exposure of English primary care patients to pharmacogenomic drugs: An analysis to inform design of pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing.

AIMS: To investigate the longitudinal exposure of English primary care patients to pharmacogenomic drugs to inform design of pre-emptive testing. METHODS: Sixty-three drugs were identified with dosing guidelines based on variants of 19 pharmacogenes in the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase on 01 September 2018. Prescribing of these pharmacogenomic drugs between 1993 and 2017 was summarised for a sample of 648 141 English patients aged 50-99 years on 01 January 2013, registered with Clinical Practice Research Datalink practices during 2011-12. Exposure of patients to pharmacogenomic drugs retrospectively (2, 10, 20 y) and prospectively (5 y) was described. RESULTS: During 2011-12, 58% of patients were prescribed at least 1 pharmacogenomic drug, increasing to 80% over the previous 20 years. Multiple exposure was common, with 47% patients prescribed ≥2 pharmacogenomic drugs and 7% prescribed ≥5 pharmacogenomic drugs over the next 5 years. The likelihood of exposure to pharmacogenomic drugs increased with age, with 89% patients ≥70 years prescribed at least 1 pharmacogenomic drug over the previous 20 years. Even among those aged 50-59 years, 71% were prescribed at least 1 pharmacogenomic drug over the previous 20 years. The pharmacogenomic drugs prescribed to the most patients were for pain relief, gastroprotection, psychiatric and cardiovascular conditions. Three pharmacogenes (CYP2D6, CYP2C19 and SLCO1B1) accounted for >95% pharmacogenomic drugs prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care patients, exposure to pharmacogenomic drugs is extremely common, multiplicitous and has commenced by relatively early adulthood. A small number of pharmacogenes account for the majority of drugs prescribed. These findings could inform design of pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing for implementation in primary care.

'I'm sure we made it a better study ': Experiences of adults with intellectual disabilities and parent carers of patient and public involvement in a health research study.

Patient and public involvement is considered integral to health research in the United Kingdom; however, studies documenting the involvement of adults with intellectual disabilities and parent carers in health research studies are scarce. Through group interviews, this study explored the perspectives and experiences of a group of adults with intellectual disabilities and a group of parent carers about their collaborative/participatory involvement in a 3-year study which explored the effectiveness of annual health checks for adults with intellectual disabilities. Thematic analysis identified five key themes consistent across both groups; authenticity of participation, working together, generating new outcome measures, dissemination of findings and involvement in future research. Although reported anecdotally rather than originating from the analysis, increased self-confidence is also discussed. The groups' unique perspectives led to insights not previously considered by the research team which led to important recommendations to inform healthcare practice.

Are noise and air pollution related to the incidence of dementia? A cohort study in London, England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the incidence of dementia is related to residential levels of air and noise pollution in London. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using primary care data. SETTING: 75 Greater London practices. PARTICIPANTS: 130 978 adults aged 50-79 years registered with their general practices on 1 January 2005, with no recorded history of dementia or care home residence. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A first recorded diagnosis of dementia and, where specified, subgroups of Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia during 2005-2013. The average annual concentrations during 2004 of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with a median aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 µm (PM2.5) and ozone (O3) were estimated at 20×20 m resolution from dispersion models. Traffic intensity, distance from major road and night-time noise levels (Lnight) were estimated at the postcode level. All exposure measures were linked anonymously to clinical data via residential postcode. HRs from Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking and body mass index, with further adjustments explored for area deprivation and comorbidity. RESULTS: 2181 subjects (1.7%) received an incident diagnosis of dementia (39% mentioning Alzheimer's disease, 29% vascular dementia). There was a positive exposure response relationship between dementia and all measures of air pollution except O3, which was not readily explained by further adjustment. Adults living in areas with the highest fifth of NO2 concentration (>41.5 µg/m3) versus the lowest fifth (<31.9 µg/m3) were at a higher risk of dementia (HR=1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.74). Increases in dementia risk were also observed with PM2.5, PM2.5 specifically from primary traffic sources only and Lnight, but only NO2 and PM2.5 remained statistically significant in multipollutant models. Associations were more consistent for Alzheimer's disease than vascular dementia. CONCLUSIONS: We have found evidence of a positive association between residential levels of air pollution across London and being diagnosed with dementia, which is unexplained by known confounding factors.

Glycemic Control and Risk of Infections Among People With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes in a Large Primary Care Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of infections, but the effect of better control has not been thoroughly investigated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: With the use of English primary care data, average glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) during 2008-2009 was estimated for 85,312 patients with DM ages 40-89 years. Infection rates during 2010-2015 compiled from primary care, linked hospital, and mortality records were estimated across 18 infection categories and further summarized as any requiring a prescription or hospitalization or as cause of death. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) by HbA1c categories across all DM, and type 1 and type 2 DM separately. IRRs also were compared with 153,341 age-sex-practice-matched controls without DM. Attributable fractions (AF%) among patients with DM were estimated for an optimal control scenario (HbA1c 6-7% [42-53 mmol/mol]). RESULTS: Long-term infection risk rose with increasing HbA1c for most outcomes. Compared with patients without DM, those with DM and optimal control (HbA1c 6-7% [42-53 mmol/mol], IRR 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.47]) and poor control (≥11% [97 mmol/mol], 4.70 [4.24-5.21]) had elevated hospitalization risks for infection. In patients with type 1 DM and poor control, this risk was even greater (IRR 8.47 [5.86-12.24]). Comparisons within patients with DM confirmed the risk of hospitalization with poor control (2.70 [2.43-3.00]) after adjustment for duration and other confounders. AF% of poor control were high for serious infections, particularly bone and joint (46%), endocarditis (26%), tuberculosis (24%), sepsis (21%), infection-related hospitalization (17%), and mortality (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Poor glycemic control is powerfully associated with serious infections and should be a high priority.

Risk of Infection in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Compared With the General Population: A Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We describe in detail the burden of infections in adults with diabetes within a large national population cohort. We also compare infection rates between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared 102,493 English primary care patients aged 40-89 years with a diabetes diagnosis by 2008 (n = 5,863 T1DM and n = 96,630 T2DM) with 203,518 age-sex-practice-matched control subjects without diabetes. Infection rates during 2008-2015, compiled from primary care and linked hospital and mortality records, were compared across 19 individual infection categories. These were further summarized as any requiring a prescription or hospitalization or as cause of death. Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) between 1) people with diabetes and control subjects and 2) T1DM and T2DM adjusted for age, sex, smoking, BMI, and deprivation. RESULTS: Compared with control subjects without diabetes, patients with diabetes had higher rates for all infections, with the highest IRRs seen for bone and joint infections, sepsis, and cellulitis. IRRs for infection-related hospitalizations were 3.71 (95% CI 3.27-4.21) for T1DM and 1.88 (95% CI 1.83-1.92) for T2DM. A direct comparison of types confirmed higher adjusted risks for T1DM versus T2DM (death from infection IRR 2.19 [95% CI 1.75-2.74]). We estimate that 6% of infection-related hospitalizations and 12% of infection-related deaths were attributable to diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes, particularly T1DM, are at increased risk of serious infection, representing an important population burden. Strategies that reduce the risk of developing severe infections and poor treatment outcomes are under-researched and should be explored.

Preventable Emergency Hospital Admissions Among Adults With Intellectual Disability in England.

PURPOSE: Adults with intellectual disabilities experience poorer physical health and health care quality, but there is limited information on the potential for reducing emergency hospital admissions in this population. We describe overall and preventable emergency admissions for adults with vs without intellectual disabilities in England and assess differences in primary care management before admission for 2 common ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). METHODS: We used electronic records to study a cohort of 16,666 adults with intellectual disabilities and 113,562 age-, sex-, and practice-matched adults without intellectual disabilities from 343 English family practices. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) from conditional Poisson regression were analyzed for all emergency and preventable emergency admissions. Primary care management of lower respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections, as exemplar ACSCs, before admission were compared in unmatched analysis between adults with and without intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: The overall rate for emergency admissions for adults with vs without intellectual disabilities was 182 vs 68 per 1,000 per year (IRR = 2.82; 95% CI, 2.66-2.98). ACSCs accounted for 33.7% of emergency admissions among the former compared with 17.3% among the latter (IRR = 5.62; 95% CI, 5.14-6.13); adjusting for comorbidity, smoking, and deprivation did not fully explain the difference (IRR = 3.60; 95% CI, 3.25-3.99). Although adults with intellectual disability were at nearly 5 times higher risk for admission for lower respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections, they had similar primary care use, investigation, and management before admission as the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with intellectual disabilities are at high risk for preventable emergency admissions. Identifying strategies for better detecting and managing ACSCs, including lower respiratory and urinary tract infections, in primary care could reduce hospitalizations.

Do health checks for adults with intellectual disability reduce emergency hospital admissions? Evaluation of a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Annual health checks for adults with intellectual disability (ID) have been incentivised by National Health Service (NHS) England since 2009, but it is unclear what impact they have had on important health outcomes such as emergency hospitalisation. METHODS: An evaluation of a 'natural experiment', incorporating practice and individual-level designs, to assess the effectiveness of health checks for adults with ID in reducing emergency hospital admissions using a large English primary care database. For practices, changes in admission rates for adults with ID between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 were compared in 126 fully participating versus 68 non-participating practices. For individuals, changes in admission rates before and after the first health check for 7487 adults with ID were compared with 46 408 age-sex-practice matched controls. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) comparing changes in admission rates are presented for: all emergency, preventable emergency (for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs)) and elective emergency. RESULTS: Practices with high health check participation showed no change in emergency admission rate among patients with ID over time compared with non-participating practices (IRR=0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19), but emergency admissions for ACSCs did fall (IRR=0.74, 0.58 to 0.95). Among individuals with ID, health checks had no effect on overall emergency admissions compared with controls (IRR=0.96, 0.87 to 1.07), although there was a relative reduction in emergency admissions for ACSCs (IRR=0.82, 0.69 to 0.99). Elective admissions showed no change with health checks in either analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Annual health checks in primary care for adults with ID did not alter overall emergency admissions, but they appeared influential in reducing preventable emergency admissions.

Mortality Among Adults With Intellectual Disability in England: Comparisons With the General Population.

OBJECTIVES: To describe mortality among adults with intellectual disability in England in comparison with the general population. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study from 2009 to 2013 using data from 343 general practices. Adults with intellectual disability (n = 16 666; 656 deaths) were compared with age-, gender-, and practice-matched controls (n = 113 562; 1358 deaths). RESULTS: Adults with intellectual disability had higher mortality rates than controls (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.3, 3.9). This risk remained high after adjustment for comorbidity, smoking, and deprivation (HR = 3.1; 95% CI = 2.7, 3.4); it was even higher among adults with intellectual disability and Down syndrome or epilepsy. A total of 37.0% of all deaths among adults with intellectual disability were classified as being amenable to health care intervention, compared with 22.5% in the general population (HR = 5.9; 95% CI = 5.1, 6.8). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among adults with intellectual disability is markedly elevated in comparison with the general population, with more than a third of deaths potentially amenable to health care interventions. This mortality disparity suggests the need to improve access to, and quality of, health care among people with intellectual disability.

Health characteristics and consultation patterns of people with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional database study in English general practice.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disability (ID) are a group with high levels of healthcare needs; however, comprehensive information on these needs and service use is very limited. AIM: To describe chronic disease, comorbidity, disability, and general practice use among people with ID compared with the general population. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of a primary care database including 408 English general practices in 2012. METHOD: A total of 14 751 adults with ID, aged 18-84 years, were compared with 86 221 age-, sex- and practice-matched controls. Depending on the outcome, prevalence (PR), risk (RR), or odds (OR) ratios comparing patients with ID with matched controls are shown. RESULTS: Patients with ID had a markedly higher prevalence of recorded epilepsy (18.5%, PR 25.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23.29 to 27.57), severe mental illness (8.6%, PR 9.10, 95% CI = 8.34 to 9.92), and dementia (1.1%, PR 7.52, 95% CI = 5.95 to 9.49), as well as moderately increased rates of hypothyroidism and heart failure (PR>2.0). However, recorded prevalence of ischaemic heart disease and cancer was approximately 30% lower than the general population. The average annual number of primary care consultations was 6.29 for patients with ID, compared with 3.89 for matched controls. Patients with ID were less likely to have longer doctor consultations (OR 0.73, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.77), and had lower continuity of care with the same doctor (OR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.82). CONCLUSION: Compared with the general population, people with ID have generally higher overall levels of chronic disease and greater primary care use. Ensuring access to high-quality chronic disease management, especially for epilepsy and mental illness, will help address these greater healthcare needs. Continuity of care and longer appointment times are important potential improvements in primary care.